To:A. RYKOV

Published:First published in 1931.

      Sent from Paris to Berlin.

      Printed from the original.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1974,

      Moscow,Volume 34,

      pages441-445.Translated:Clemens DuttTranscription\Markup:D. MorosPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Saturday, February 25, 1911

DearVlasov,

Ihave just received your letter and I hasten to reply at once without waiting
for Grigory, who forwarded Samovarov’s letter on to you today.

Nadyais writing today to Lyubich. What a pity you didn’t think of it
before. Now you must write to him not about preparing to leave, but about
immediate departure. Write to him again, insisting emphatically on immediate
departure, otherwise the enemy will have four (the Bundist+the Lett+two
Mensheviks) and we’ll have no more than that (three, of whom one is
doubtful,+one Pole).

Yourletter concerning the declaration grieves me very much, for I see from it
how inadequate our agreement still is and hence (to myextreme regret)
how “precarious” it is.

Amongthe changes proposed by you, there are some to which no objections can be
made. These include: dealing with the question of affairs abroad in a special
resolution; adding to the declaration a special paragraph on the significance
of the. Duma and on the fact that those not assisting in the elections to the
Fourth Duma are traitors;separatingthe question of renewing the
primary Party cells (although I do not understand why it should
be separated and where it should be put. It must be dealt with, however! But
where?).

Butyou propose many more changes that are unacceptable and harmful.

(“Torecognise that the conference is urgent”? Why try to be cunning? You
don’t believe in it yourself! To breed hypocrisy and
self-deception—there is nothing more harmful than that just now!)

“Toexpress satisfaction that otzovism-ultimatumism has in effect
disappeared from the political horizon”....

Thatisuntrue. I have seen workers who supportVperyod, andevenYevgeny in his speeches refutes this untruth.

“Towelcome the decision of theVperyodgroup to take part in the
elections”....

Therehas beennosuch decision so far. And if it does appear tomorrow,
it is scandalous “to welcome” the splitters for doing theirdutyand to keep silent about the expro
funds.[2]

Youwrite: “I know of no otzovist or ultimatumist statements ofVperyod afterthe plenum”....

Youought to know better. Just look: (1) The leaflet of theVperyodgroup after the plenum: sheer abuse of the central bodies—not a word
about renouncing the otzovist ultimatumist platform. (2) The symposium
No. 1[3]—ditto.Not a singleguiding article on theDumaand Duma activities. (3) Lunacharsky inLe Peuple(it is
quoted in the C.O.—Lunacharsky was officially delegated by theVperyod
groupto the Copenhagen Congress). (4) The leaflet of the GenevaVperyodgroup (it is quoted in part inGolosS.-D.), which
lines up with Lunacharsky.

Vperyod, after the plenum, was in dutyboundto issue
a new platform, since theold one(it came out on December
27, 1909, i.e.,on the eveof the plenum) is anotzovist-ultimatumistplatform.Vperyodhasnotdone this!

Yourbasic mistake is that you believewordsand close your eyes todeeds. A lot of “good words” have been told you by various people
like Domov or Alexinsky and I don’t know who else, and you believe
them. You write:Vperyod“is on the eve of dissolution or is a
possible ally of ours”, it “is freeing itself from the
otzovist-ultimatumist platform”.

Thisisuntrue. They are the lying words of swindlers who are ready to
promise anything so long as they candisguisethe facts, namely, their
own special school, their 85,000 rubles of expro money.

Whatif Domov does move away fromVperyod—Domov is a high school
teacher, a philistine, an ignorant old woman, and not a politician. What if
Alexinsky has “quarrelled” with Bogdanov and Co.—now,after returningfromBologna, he has quite made it up again and yesterday delivered a lectureon
behalf oftheVperyodgroup!

Youput your trust inwordsand leaveyourselfhelplessin
deeds—which means repeating thefatalerror of the plenum,
an error which has weakened the Partyfor a yearat least. If you now,
a year after the idiotic conciliatory errors of the plenum,repeatthese errors, you will completely ruin all prospects of “unity”. I
say this with the fullest conviction, for I know it thoroughly from experience. Leave it to Samovarov to shout about my having wrecked
“unity” (this is the catch-phrase of Trotsky and Yonov. Samovarovhasto shout this nonsense (which hedares notutter in print
and which I havepubliclydealt with and refuted in No. 2 ofDiskussionny
Listok[1], for he isashamedto admit the mistake
the conciliators made at the plenum. Their mistake was that they almost ruined
the prospect of unity with thepro-PartyMensheviks, by believing thewordsof the anti-Party Golosists and allowing them toconsolidate
themselves in deeds.

Mindyou don’t repeat this mistake!

TheVperyodists are very strong. They have a school=a conference=agents. We (and
the C.C.) havenot. They have money—some 80,000 rubles. You think
they will give it to you? Are you really so naïve?

Andif not,howcan you regard as “allies”factionalistswho are keeping a factional fundagainstyou!

Itis the height of naïvetá to write: “I do not want to make it difficult
for theVperyodsplinter elements to achieve a rapprochement.”

Theyhave achieved a rapprochement with the liquidators, they have organised a
school against you, they are pulling the wool over your eyes, saying: we are all
right, we are not otzovists, and you believe their wordsand do not combat
their deeds. It’s the limit, really!

Youwrite: “I should not like to have the Vperyodists expelled from the
general Party (not factional) organisation abroad.”

Eitherthe one or the other: either youencouragea specialfaction and let itkeepits money, in which case we shall publish our
statement to the C.C. (demanding a committee of enquiry) and say: let the
Vperyodists helpsucha C.C.,we shall not do so.

Oryoucondemnthe factionalism of the Vperyodists, in which case you
have to he consistent.By condemningin words only, you make yourselfridiculous.

Inthat case it must be said:so long asthe Vperyodists (1) do not
publish anewplatform, (2) do not make pro-Party statements, (3) do
not dissolve theirfactionalschool, (4) do not hand over theirfactionalfunds to the Party—they remain an anti-Party faction.

Ifyou do not saythis, you will lose our co-operationwithoutgaining that of the Vperyodists. Is that good policy?

Asfor the splinter elements (future ones!), do not worry about
that. If we arestrong, they will all come to us. If we are weak, if we
believe in words, we shall be laughed at, that’s all. To find the right
form is not so difficult: for example, after condemning the Vperyodfaction, to say thatpartof the Vperyodistworkersstand for elections, for legal opportunities, for the Party principle, and that
you call on such workers, such Vperyodists, to comeaway fromthe
faction andtothe Party, etc., etc.

Inthe resolution on unity abroad it should be clearly specifiedwhothe disrupters are: theGolosistsandVperyodists mustbe
named, and it must be explained wherein liestheir“disruption
and anti-Partyism”:notin ideas (argue and write about this inDiskussionny Listok, etc.)butin the special school, in the
special school funds, in the special organ (Golos), in the special
collections forGolos, and in the special factional groups (which
maintain contacts with Russiaagainstthe C.C.).

Ifthe Golosists and Vperyodists are not precisely and clearly named, the whole
resolution=0. In that case you willcompelus to come out against thisplayingat unity.

Ifyou name them precisely and sayclearlywhat their factionalism is,
you will immediately and definitelywin over the majorityof our
people abroad (the Bolsheviks+ the Plekhanovites+pro-Party
workers+the bulk of thegroupsin the “provinces”
and in America, where there are noleadersof Golosism).

Ifthe C.C.’s “struggle” againstfactionsconsists in itspaying courtto theanti-Partyfactions ofGolosandVperyod, in hamperingourwork (in a Party spirit) by
multi-storey formalities (the Pole, a committee, a collegium of people who are
not acquainted with the matter, “invitation” of Vperyodists, quarrel
with Alexinsky, etc., etc.), then you cancount us out.

Wehave just received a letter from St. Petersburg. Samovarov has proposed to
the Social-Democratic Duma group that it issue an electoral platform!

This—toa majority of Mensheviks! (and not a word to us). If Samovarov
wants to carry onin this fashion, I promise you that I shall begin a
series of leafletsdirectlyagainst Samovarov.

Ifan agreement among us is possible, theBolsheviksmust rally into atrendand workharmoniously(on the basis of the agreement),
and not carry on intrigues, nor go over to the Mensheviks.

Writeand let me know your opinion as soon as possible.

Allthe best.Yours,Lenin

P.S.Have you seen Nikitich? Has he tried to sell the story ofVperyod’speace-loving nature? He’s a great hand at making
promises and throwing dust in people’s eyes.

[1]Thereference is to “Notes of a Publicist” (see present edition,
  Vol. 16).—Ed.

[2]Meaningthe funds on which the second Vperyodist school existed; these
funds were received mainly from the Ural Party people, who carried out the
Miass expropriation.

[3]Thisrefers to the symposiumVperyod, organ of the anti-PartyVperyodgroup, published in Geneva in 1910–11.